Jay Maynard wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 08:13:39AM -0400, Bob Shannon wrote:
Seriously, we're talking about a parameter. I agree that 256 bytes ought
to be sufficient.
Indeed. I can't recall where I read it, but someone suggested that program designers avoid constraints that are powers of ten, for they are likely to be seen as artificial constraints rather than legitimate limits imposed by the design. There are good technical reasons for a 256-byte limit on parm length (MVC), and that would seem to be a good dividing line between what belongs on a PARM statement and what belongs elsewhere just for the sake of manageability.
256 bytes ?
IMHO it is not worth to change from 100 to 256. Many "should be enough" limits occured much too short.
BTW: I know *existing* OS/390 application using more than 256 bytes in PARM. It is c89 compiler. I vaguely recollect, it creates "pseudo job" for compilation, this job looks like regular JCL, but all the compiler options are in PARM field (many LINES of PARM) and that's why it is circumvented in some way. I don't remember details, but the need is obvious.
Personally I vote for //STEP EXEC ... PARMX=ddname //DDNAME DD * put here as much as you want (i.e. 64k) /*
Or (good for PROCLIB) PARMX1=' ', PARMX2=' ' etc.
-- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
